According to the bank, aforementioned second clause implies that the bank only has to verify the signature and the account balance when making a money transfer and bears no further liability. In contrast, the court rules that by limiting its responsibility to the control of the signature and the account balance, the bank deprives the contract of its main subject matter. The court finds consequently that a clause which deprives the contract of its main subject matter creates a manifest imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties, and is therefore unfair on the basis of Article 31 TPA.The court thus concludes that the bank cannot invoke the second clause to deny its liability, since that clause is unfair and therefore null. By executing the order without noticing a number of suspicious elements which might reveal the wrongful origin of the order, the bank committed a contractual error and is therefore liable for the damages so caused to the account holder.
Integrale tekst: Integrale tekst
Judgment text is only available in pdf-format.